روش شناسی یا فرونسیولوژی: فهم رویکرد فرونتیک در پژوهشهای علوم انسانی

نوع مقاله : ترویجی

نویسنده

دانشیار گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه پیام‌نور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

روش‌شناسی ابزاری مهم در هر پژوهشی اعم از علوم انسانی و اجتماعی و همچنین علوم پایه و طبیعی است. اگرچه در روش‌شناسی پژوهشی، علوم انسانی بیشتر دنباله‌رو علوم طبیعی بوده است، امّا هر چه به جلو پیش رفتیم، علوم انسانی و اجتماعی تلاش کرده است تا روش‌شناسی خاص خود را دنبال کند. بدین منظور رویکردهای روش‌شناسی مختلفی در حوزه علوم انسانی و اجتماعی پیشنهاد شده است تا بتوان با استفاده از آنها نتایج پربارتری گرفت. امّا آیا این روش‌شناسی‌ها توانسته است نتایج مشخص و بهتری را در پی داشته باشد؟ آیا روش‌شناسی‌های جدید می‌تواند مسائل اجتماعی را به خوبی مسائل طبیعی حل کند؟ در علوم انسانی و اجتماعی که هدف غائی از پژوهش بهبود کیفّیت زندگی و رفاه و بهزیستی فردی و جمعی است؛ کدام روش‌شناسی توانسته است آن را محقق سازد؟ در پژوهش حاضر تلاش شده است با تأکید ویژه بر حکمت عملی (فرونسیس) ارسطو، روش‌شناسی متکی بر آن شرح داده شود. فرونسیس یکی از پنج فضیلت عقلانی ارسطو است که آن را مقدم بر دیگر فضیلت‌ها دانسته است. در تحقیق مبتنی بر فرونسیسِ ارسطو به طور ویژه تأکید بر زمینه و بستری است که مسائل آن باید در آنجا حل و فصل شوند. مسئله‌محور بودن پژوهش، اساس این رویکرد را بنیان می‌نهد؛ یعنی رویکرد فرونسیس در پژوهش معتقد است به جای روش‌محور بودن باید بر مسئله تمرکز کرد و متناسب با آن روش را انتخاب کرد. به عبارتی، در رویکرد حکمت‌بنیان که مبتنی بر فرونسیس ارسطو است، نزدیک شدن به واقعیت به منظور حل مسئله بر نوع روش ارجحیت دارد. . رویکرد فرونتیک یا روش‌شناسی پراکسیس‌محوری در پژوهش که توسط فلایبرگ در تحقیق برنامه ریزی فرونتیک مطرح شده است بر اساس این چارچوب شکل گرفته است. این پژوهش تلاش کرده است فرونسیولوژی را به جای روش شناسی یا حتی روش‌شناسی فرونسیولوژی در علوم انسانی و اجتماعی معرفی کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Methodology or Phronesiology: Understanding of Phronetic Approach in Humanities Research

نویسنده [English]

  • Morteza Moradi
Faculty Member at Payame Noor University
چکیده [English]

Methodology is an important tool in any research, including humanities and social sciences, as well as basic and natural sciences. Although in research methodology, humanities have mostly followed natural sciences, but as we moved forward, humanities and social sciences have tried to follow their own methodology. For this purpose, various methodological approaches have been proposed in the field of humanities and social sciences so that more fruitful results can be obtained by using them. But have these methodologies been able to achieve specific and better results? Can new methodologies solve social problems as well as natural problems? In humanities and social sciences, where the ultimate goal of research is to improve the quality of life and individual and collective well-being; which methodology has been able to achieve it? In the present research, an attempt has been made to explain the methodology based on Aristotle's practical wisdom (phronesis). Phronesis is one of Aristotle's five intellectual virtues, which he considered to be prior to other virtues. In the research based on Aristotle's phronesis, the context and the context in which the issues should be resolved are especially emphasized. The problem-oriented nature of the research is the basis of this approach; That is, Phronesis' approach in research believes that instead of being method-oriented, one should focus on the problem and choose the appropriate method. In other words, in the wisdom-based approach, which is based on Aristotle's Phronesis, approaching the reality in order to solve the problem is preferable to the type of method. The phronetic approach or praxis-oriented methodology in research proposed by Flyvbjerg in the phronetic planning research has been formed based on this framework. This research has attempted to introduce Phronesiology instead of methodology or even the methodology of Phronesiology in the humanities and social sciences.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Phronetic
  • Phronesis
  • practical wisdom
  • methodology
  • Aristotle
  • Phronesiology

مراجع

Alavipour, S. M., & Moafi, M. (2021). Scientific engagement in social transformations: Phronetic social science. Contemporary political Studies, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS) Quarterly Journal, 12(1), 83-109. (Presian) DOI: 10.30465/cps.2021.32238.2548
Alavipour, S., & Manoochehri, A. (2020). Phronetic science: A fundamental implication for development theory. Political and International Approaches, 11(3), 13-28. (Presian) DOI: 10.29252/piaj.2020.99906

Ali-tabar, R. (2020). Nature of human-social affairs and their implication in methodology of humanities. Religious Anthropology, 17(44), 27-48. (Presian) DOI: 10.22034/ra.2021.110932.2367

Ames, M. C. F. D. C., Serafim, M. C., & Zappellini, M. B. (2020). Phronesis in administration and organizations: A literature review and future research agenda. Business Ethics: A European Review, 29(S1), 65-83. DOI: 10.1111/beer.12296

AmiriTehrani, S. M. R. (2019). The relevance of applied social sciences to phronesis. Contemporary Wisdom, 10(2), 61-82. (Presian) DOI: 10.30465/cw.2020.4607

Aristotle (1999). Nicomachean Ethics. (M. H., Lotfi, Persian Trans.). Tehran: Kharazmi publishing. (Presian)
Bagheri, Y., & Ghafari, Gh. (2020). Critical analysis, a methodological effort to confront power relations. Humanities Methodology, 26(105), 69-81. (Presian) DOI: 10.30471/mssh.2020.4574.1765
Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom. A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue towards excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122-136. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.122
Barzegar, E. (2010). The approach to localizing the humanities. Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 16(63), 29-53. (Presian)
Chia, R., Holt, R., & Yuan, L. (2013). In praise of strategic indirection: Towards a non-instrumental understanding of phronésis as practical wisdom. In M. J. Thompson, & D. Bevan (Eds.), Wise management in organisational complexity (pp. 53-67). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Cooper, J. M. (2012). Pursuits of wisdom: Six ways of life in ancient philosophy from socrates to plotinus. New Jersey: Princeton Univeristy Press.
Danaee Fard, H. (2007). Integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in organizational research: A reflection on the combined research strategy. Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 13(53), 35-63. (Presian)
Eikeland, O. (2008). The ways of Aristotle: Aristotelian phronesis, Aristotelian philosophy of dialogue, and action research (Vol. 5). Switzerland: Peter Lang Group AG.
Fathalikhani, M. (2021). The position/role of practical reason in Human Sciences. Humanities Methodology, 27(106), 91-111. (Presian) DOI: 10.30471/mssh.2021.7670.2213
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(4), 353-366. DOI:10.1177/0739456X0202100401
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283-306. DOI: 10.1080/1464935042000250195
Flyvbjerg, B. (2008). Phronetic organizational research. In R. Thorpe & R. Holt (Eds.), Handbook of The Sage Dictionary of qualitative management research. Washington DC: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2019). Planning, phronesis, power (N. Jahanzad, Persian Trans.). Mashhad: Kasra book publishing. (Presian)
Geertz, C. (1995). After the fact: Two countries, four decades one anthropologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ghafarinasab, E., & Iman, M. T. (2010). A study of Blumer's methodology in social sciences. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 15(61), 103-122. (Presian)
Ghaneirad, M. A., & Tolooei, V. (2009). Methodological turns in Humanities and Social Sciences. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 14(57), 53-74. (Presian)
Hasani, S. H. & Mousavi, H. (2018). Practical wisdom as a philosophy of human sciences. Humanities Methodology, 24(97), 57-73. (Presian) DOI: 10.30471/mssh.2018.1541
Hassani, H. R. (2006). The relationships between understanding and explanation in Humanities and Natural Sciences. Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 12(47), 94-114. (Presian)
Henderson, D. K. (1994). Epistemic competence and contextualist epistemology: Why contextualism is not just the poor person's coherentism. The Journal of Philosophy, 91(12), 627-649. DOI: 10.2307/2940759
Iman, M. T. (2014). Philosophy of research method in The Humanities. Qom: Research Institute of Howzah and University. (Presian)
Iman, MT., & Aghapur, I. (2007). Angularization technique in humanities research. Humanities Methodology, 13(52), 25-43. (Presian)
Jamalzadeh M. H. (2022). The effect of methodological foundations of positivism and transcendental wisdom on human sciences; comparative study. Islamic Social Research, 28(2), 83-104. (Presian) DOI: 10.30513/iss.2023.4407.1248
Kalbasi, A., & Nasr, A. (2011). Application of mixed designs in Social Science and Humanities researches. Humanities Methodology, 17(67), 79-96. (Presian)
Keramatzadeh, A. (2006). Comparative study of characteristics and methodologies of Social Sciences and Natural Sciences from Popper's point of view. Methodology of Humanities, 12(48), 28-48. (Presian)
Khademi, E. (2006). The methodological changes of doing researches in Humanities. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 12(49), 25-44. (Presian)
Khodabandehlu, R. (2018). The Eurocentric and the impact of power-knowledge in the formation of modern Human Sciences. Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24(96), 119-133. (Presian) DOI: 10.30471/mssh.2018.1533
MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (Second Ed.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Maxwell, N. (1984). From knowledge to wisdom: A revolution in the aims and methods of science. Oxford: Blackwell publishing.
McKenna, B. (2013). The multi-dimensional character of wisdom. In M. J. Thompson & D. Bevan (Eds), Wise Management in Organizational Complexity (pp.13-33). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Moradi, M. (2014). A paradigmatic transition from quantitative research to qualitative research in humanities. Rahyaft, 57, 93-116. (Presian)

Moradi, M. (2023a February). Phronetic approach in research methodology in humanities and social sciences [Paper presentation]. In National Conference on Research Methods in Humanities and Social Sciences: Emerging Approaches and Future Challenges, Tehran, Iran. (Presian)
Moradi, M. (2023b July). Praxis-oriented governance with an emphasis on rationality and power [Paper presentation]. In the Fourth National Conference and the Second International Conference of Supreme Governance, Tehran, Iran. (Presian)
MoslehShirazi, A. N., Raanaei, H., Iman, M. T., & Tajik, M. (2016). Multisystem methodology: A new approach in management research. Methodology of Humanities, 22(87), 7-32. (Presian)
Mousavi, H., & Hassani, S. H. (2022). What is the Human Sciences? Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 28(111), 1-14. (Presian) DOI: 10.30471/mssh.2021.8039.2258
Nietzsche, F., Kaufmann, W., Hollingdale, R. J. (1968). The will to power. New York City: Vintage.
Nowrouzi, R. A., & Shahdadi KhajehAsgari, A. (2006). An introduction to the refutation of Habermas Theories in the methodology of Humanities. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 12(47), 115-135. (Presian)
Paya, A. (2016). How can the efficiency of humanities be increased? A discussion on feasibility and practical solutions. Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 22(86), 73-119. (Presian)
Rooney, D. (2013). Empirical wisdom research: A community approach. In M. J. Thompson & D. Bevan (Eds.), Wise Management in Organizational Complexity (pp. 34-52). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rooney, D., & McKenna, B. (2008). Wisdom in public administration: Looking for a sociology of wise practice. Public Administration Review, 68(4), 709-721. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00909.x
Rooney, D., Hearn, G., Mandeville, T., & Joseph, R. (2003). Public policy in knowledgebased economies. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Watson, V. (2003). Conflicting rationalities: Implications for planning theory and ethics. Planning Theory and Practice, 4(4), 395-408. DOI: 10.1080/1464935032000146318
 

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار